As long as we're obsessing about whether criticism of Hillary Clinton is a manifestation of sexism, why not get some balance and obsess over whether criticism of Barack Obama is homophobic? Well, for one thing, Hillary Clinton is, plainly, a woman, but talking about Obama in these terms floats a rumor. You could also have a mini-project tracking insinuations that Obama is a Muslim. Are you criticizing the insinuations or propagating them?

Alex means well:

Personally, I'd love to have a queer in the Oval Office, but this is about deriding the personality of politicians because they don't fit the mold for heterosexual masculinity, which, besides holding back good policy, also helps relegate homosexuality, non-traditional masculinity, gender non-conformity, femininity, fabulousness, and women to second-class status.

It's amazing what kind of stuff people pull out of the woodshed to smear someone with, if they can't find a way to confront them on the issues.

Early in the campaign, Obama was criticized for being 'not black enough.' Later on, he was 'too black.'

Then came the muslim stuff. Then came the reverend Wright flap. So somehow a guy who attended the Trinity Church of Christ for twenty years listening to Reverend Wright's sermons and had Reverend Wright baptize his children is still be called a 'muslim' by some people. Go figure.

So now a man who is married to an unquestionably strong woman and has two children by her is being rumored to be gay. I guess I should consider this good news because it means they've exhausted their search for evidence of infidelity.

What this shows is that the right is getting desperate. They can't find much more dirt on Obama than has already come out so they have to make some up, no matter how irrational it is.

And in the general scheme of the election, the Wright thing has already been given a full airing and Obama's still ahead in the polls, he was honest and put the cocaine admission in his book that came out last year, and whatever comes out about Rezko, the revelations now coming out here in Arizona about what McCain did using his professional office to benefit Steven Betts are likely to be far more damning.

Eli, your criticism falls flat because in those instances it was not the same people making the criticism. "They" were different people. The "not black enough" crowd were largely black leaders like Sharpton and Jackson who were suspicious of a black candidate that wasn't aligned with them. Later on the "too black" (a ridiculous oversimplification) comments were in regards to very real problems with his association with a racist demagogue. And from what I can tell, Alex Blaze is pulling this out of his ass...The right's not calling him a faggot, outside of the occasional weirdo like Savage; they are calling him weak, and maybe in this Blaze's mind that's the same, and he's projecting. But that's on him, not on the rest of us.

I'm pretty sure that the "Obama is the Antichrist" meme is more prevalent on the internet.

Obama is attractive, well spoken, multiracial and about to lead the strongest nation in the world. I saw "The Antichrist (Part I)" on the History Channel last night and that's the recipe for the Antichrist. I haven't seen Part II yet but I think they ID Obama in the previews.

It is not unreasonable for voters to be suspicious about every aspect of a potential President's personal life, given the Victorian modesty of the American press. In the 1930s, being a 'cripple' was so shameful, FDR was never photographed being carried or in motion. In the 1950s and 1960s, no one reported on JFK's serial infidelities or, worse, his life-threatening chronic illnesses. In the 1970s and 1980s, no one mentioned Sen. Kennedy's problems with alcohol.

JFK's octogenarian spinner Theodore "Ted" Sorensen told NPR's Diane Rehms last week that Pres. Kennedy's extramarital dalliances were always "prudent" and never interfered with the performance of his Presidential duties. Therefore, he implied, they really had no bearing on anything whatsoever. JFK's mob mistress Judith Exner, according to Sorensen, was just a money-grubbing liar. No potential blackmail problems there. Nothing to see. Just keep moving. Of course, public knowledge of Kennedy's personal life would have cost him the election in 1960; of course, Rehms never asked Sorensen about JFK's horrendously poor health.

Google Obama and downlow, and you'll get 158,000 hits. Looks like most of the talk is coming from the gay community, not the GOP. For example, the blog that Prof. Althouse links to above is a masterpiece of insinuation. Its author declines to mention that a suit was filed against Sen. Obama a few months ago by a man claiming to be one of his sexual partners. (Of course this year's other untouchable story was the Nat'l Enquirer report that Sen. Edwards' mistress was about to give birth to his child.)

Looking back from 50 years in the future, it's possible being quietly gay and running for President (and being an adulterer, too), would be the equivalent of being in a wheelchair in the 1930s—no big deal.

It's also possible that Sen. Obama is vulnerable to blackmail, as JFK was.

You do have a point, that not all of them originate from the same people. But it still amazes me that after six weeks of wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's history with Reverend Wright that there are still people who call him a muslim, claim he went to school in a madrassa, took his oath of office on the Quran and is a member of Louis Farrakhan's congregation. Either they are the most uneducated people in the world, or they know better but choose to say whatever they can to attack Obama.

Obama may have played both sides of the fence; but it is very likely that Hillary has as well. There are rumors that Hillary would have women sent to her hotel room and her campaign aide Huma Abedin is supposedly her current lover.

Regulate homosexuality? What does that mean? Where is homosexuality, in and of itself, regulated in the United States?

"non-traditional masculinity"

What? Any concept of masculinity in a culture or society is "traditional". Concepts have a shared meaning. You can say that carrying a piping-bag full of pink butter cream frosting in a holster about the waist is "the new masculinity" if you want, but that doesn't mean anyone else will agree. Traditions generally accrue because of their validity and usefulness; when they are no longer useful they are cast off. Apparently "traditional masculinity" is useful to human society, which is why it survives as a concept.

"gender non-conformity,"

Again, meaninglessness. No matter what your "Gender and Queer Studies" professor told you, "gender" (a word that should only be applied to words, to classes of nouns) is not an oversized sequined frock to be worn and removed at will. "Gender non-conformity" ignores eons of biological and social imperatives, things that, no matter what you wish, cannot be tossed aside lightly if at all.

"femininity"

Wait, "traditional masculinity" regulates femininity? According to many feminists, it creates the concept of "femininity" as a means of subjugating women. But now it's "regulating femininity"? How, by taxing mascara?

"fabulousness"

Oh, I shouldn't have been taking you seriously.

"and women to second-class status."

Women are perfectly capable of doing that for themselves, without the help of "traditional masculinity".

"This will become a dominant narrative this fall as McCain is a real manly man and Obama can't bowl over 37."

John McCain was a fighter pilot and survived being tortured for 5 years. Seems pretty manly to me.

"We all know who the GOP and the corporate media are going to back."

Scandalous! The GOP is going to back –gasp!– a Republican! And the "corporate media" (as opposed to the incorporeal media?) is going to back McCain? Of course, as they've been so even-handed in their coverage of the Democratic primary fight between Hillary and Obama so far... But hey, little Alex has proof, a quote from that noted arch-conservative Maureen Dowd!

Obama does not come across as anything other than masculine and, of course, I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise.

Eli Blake said..."It's amazing what kind of stuff people pull out of the woodshed to smear someone with, if they can't find a way to confront them on the issues."

I don't get your point. Alex is pro-Obama and I'm saying he may be hurting Obama, so who are you supposed to be criticizing?

"What this shows is that the right is getting desperate."

The right? What are you talking about? Did you read Alex's post? He's highlighting Maureen Dowd, among others. Is she the right?

"Meanwhile, the second place finisher in the Republican presidential sweepstakes can go to the NRA convention and make a joke about somebody shooting at Barack Obama and it is greeted with laughs."

You say that as if I didn't already post on that and call Huckabee an idiot. We talked about that here already. You show up belatedly as if you are the conscience of this blog, but you are completely out of place. Reorient yourself to this forum and say something that fits!

I'm glad Alex has something to keep him occupied. Myself, I've been taking up fishing.

Seriously, what's the point? If someine counted up the number of times George Bush was called a chimp would that be useful? I mean, John Kerry was, plainly, a windsurfer, but talking about Bush in chimp terms floated a rumor, or something.

You do have a point, that not all of them originate from the same people. But it still amazes me that after six weeks of wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's history with Reverend Wright that there are still people who call him a muslim, claim he went to school in a madrassa, took his oath of office on the Quran and is a member of Louis Farrakhan's congregation. Either they are the most uneducated people in the world, or they know better but choose to say whatever they can to attack Obama.

I actually finally met one of these people this week-end. That person was not exactly what I would describe as the sharpest tool in the shed, nor the most influential. That person especially didn't have a radio show or an opinion column.

Look, you can keep using the 675th poster at Free Republic as your example of "representative" conservative thought if you want to, but I would think you'd be better off actually reading what the intellectual leaders talk about. The fact is there are always idiots, who couldn't tell you who Wright was, and think Obama has a funny name, just like there are idiots who still believe OJ was innocent, and Bill Clinton didn't have "relations" with that woman. They aren't even close to a majority, and the percentage of them that votes is so low as to be negligible. It's fun to pretend that our idealogical opponents are all slack-jawed yokels, or limp wristed knee-jerk terrorist coddlers, but it's just a way of deluding ourselves.

A rumor is a rumor, it may or may not be true. This whole post is about some rumor about Obama, so why is it wrong to raise a rumor about Hillary which has multiple sources over multiple years. The Clinton marriage is at best non-traditional. What would be so wrong if Hillary were bi?

"It's the tired old false daddy party - mommy party dichotomy. The real dichotomy is human party versus reptilian party."

Hmm, why is one dichotomy falser than the other? I mean, the "mommy" and "daddy" descriptors for the Democrat and Republican parties at least has some metaphorical validity, as well as a certain elegance in contrasting maternal and paternal behaviors. The metaphor seems rather even-handed, drawing both good and bad inferences from the comparisons, unless of course you hate your mommy or daddy or both. But "human" and "reptilian" party? What does that even mean? That Republicans have thick skin, sometimes sharp teeth and cool blood that allows them to adapt to their often difficult environments? That Democrats are largely hairless, soft and bipedal? Is there something inherently wrong with reptiles? Is there something intrinsically good about humans? Will you still think you're a member of the "human party" if your party nominates Hillary Clinton?

But hey, it's only AlphaLiberal, not known for elegance, aptness or even coherence.

I just hope that the candidates spruce up the narratives of their campaigns because a lot of it is getting to be old hat.

Even the candidates are getting tired of the same old, same old. Hillary told McCain: “Enough already with this five years as POW. I was stuck in an elevator with Chuck Schumer for an hour once. We’re even!”

No, that is not what is happening at all. This comes from the mainstream media, so it is not a conservative trick. COnservatives have no such paltry and limited access to the MSM that you might as well blame this on hen's teeth.

I certainly hope that the Republicans are getting desperate, their putting up McCain and acting like frightened kittens should cause them angst. Of course they will deal with it by moving to more liberal and pc stances. The cure, in this case, is the disease. But the Republicans outside of North Carolina have been afraid to critisize the most liberal senator. Whodathunkit?

So we can rule out Conservatives and Republicans, so who is this stuff really coming from?

Reptiles, lacking frontal lobes, are incapable of "thinking" when they are emotionally aroused. They have four choices, freeze, run, bluff or fight. They cannot hold a discussion with you, they cannot debate you on the merits of what you said, they can only appeal to threats and abuse because they have no higher brain functioning.

Human beings, well healthy ones at least, can modulate their affect and think even when they are emotionally upset. It is related to their having a decent attachmnet history (dad was probably in the house.)

I leave it the readers to judge which school of thought reacts with hostility whenever it is questioned and which can have a discussion based on facts even after being insulted.

But it still amazes me that after six weeks of wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's history with Reverend Wright that there are still people who call him a muslim, claim he went to school in a madrassa, took his oath of office on the Quran and is a member of Louis Farrakhan's congregation.

That confusion is probably helped by a couple of things:

(1): Black liberation theology is closer, spiritually speaking, to the Nation of Islam than it is to mainstream Christianity.

(2): Wright and his church are buddy-buddy with Farrakhan and the NoI; Wright even uses NoI goons for security. Obama also has a troubling history with Farrakhan.

(3): While Obama was not educated in "a madrassa", his father and stepfather were Muslim, he grew up in an overwhelming Muslim nation, and he did receive religious education in Islam. He was empathetically NOT raised as a Christian.

When a guy's raised in a Muslim environment and grows up to join a "church" that Elijah Muhammed would feel at home in, it is understandable that some people in middle America are going to be confused about his religious beliefs.

Me, I'd say Black Liberation Theology is closer to plain old Liberation Theology, which is indeed a thread within the Christian tradition.

It has a lot in common with liberation theology, sure. But it shares withe the Nation of Islam an ordering of priorities which is inimical to the message of Christianity. Both BLT and NoI place the black race in a preeminent position and evaluate theological concepts in terms of their perceived utility to blacks. That is directly hostile to Christ's teachings.

Plain "liberation theology", while still well outside the mainstream of Christianity, at least continued in the tradition of Christ's teachings being for all the people of the Earth. Black liberation theology, on the other hand, is just a racist cult.

I hate statements like that. Are we building a People Zoo? "And here, we have the queer. And over here, the hetero. And over here, you'll find our extensive selections of bi's, some tending gay and others straight. Now onto our race wing..."

I hate statements like that. Are we building a People Zoo? "And here, we have the queer. And over here, the hetero. And over here, you'll find our extensive selections of bi's, some tending gay and others straight. Now onto our race wing..."

What else should expect from an entertainment based culture that has had homosexuality literally rammed down it's throat as a benign force for theater and fashion designers the world over. Now that homosexuals have successfully implanted themselves into current streams of thought, they will now do what they love most, classify you based on their personal little hatreds. Have a family, well, you are just a little breeder. See a little metro boy you like, then try to seduce his little twink ass to the dark side. Nevermind that classifications based on homotheology is nothing more than an aggrieved hatred projected on the rest of the world. However, beware that you should offend any of them, lest they whip out their practiced and rote, faux-witty retorts. So stinging in their dullness.

So my wife’s best friend from the first grade opens the store for us every day. She’s the salt of the earth and I would trust her with my life. But she is a neighborhood girl who is all Brooklyn all the time.

Anyway, today this guy comes into the store and said he wanted to buy a dress. So Dina asks “great, for who?” He says “For me.” So he takes a couple of ball gowns into the dressing room to try on to see what fits.

Meantime my wife walks in. And Dina goes up to her and says: “We have a cross trainer in the dressing room.”

The funny thing is that my wife knew exactly what she meant.

The best thing is that he found two great dresses.

I hope this gay marriage thing works out. We are starting bridal in the fall.

Hey, Troop, that's right! That's a hitherto underserved niche! You could make a fortune!

OK, all free market capitalists should be for gay marriage now!

Freeman --

I hate statements like that. Are we building a People Zoo? "And here, we have the queer. And over here, the hetero. And over here, you'll find our extensive selections of bi's, some tending gay and others straight. Now onto our race wing..."

Actually, that fits in perfectly with the university needing to hire a conservative--well, not really a conservative, but one who studies conservatives for the freaks of nature they are.

That would be the sideshow wing of the people zoo, along with the hetero couple "breeders" and the white male. (Enclosed behind double-paned sound-proof glass so his hate speech can't reach the tender ears of children.)

There is no reason why a cross trainer can not enjoy a beautiful Tadashi gown together with a nice pair of strappy sandals and a understated string of pearls.

Although this customer happened to be gay, not all cross trainers are gay. Some are bisexual. Some are staight. Some just like to look pretty. But when you put your money in the cash register, it's just as green as anyone else's. That's capitalism baby.

I believe in a America where people can be what they want. As long as they don't scare the chickens. (are you listening RH).

"What else should expect from an entertainment based culture that has had homosexuality literally rammed down it's throat as a benign force for theater and fashion designers the world over. Now that homosexuals have successfully implanted themselves into current streams of thought...See a little metro boy you like, then try to seduce his little twink ass to the dark side... However, beware that you should offend any of them, lest they whip out their practiced and rote, faux-witty retorts. So stinging in their dullness."

Mmm, sounds like somebody has a little problem! I feel your pain, Methadras. I can't stop thinking about ramming throats and stinging twink asses and whipping it out and implanting myself in little "metro" boys either.

However, if ever we are out Brooklyn way, I'll ask DH if he's willing to bring one of his Steinbergers or his Paul Reed Smith (or one of his other guitars, if you prefer) and do a real mean version of the song at your store, perhaps for a special promotion, or something.

I suppose he could also provide a rendition of Eddie De Lange's & Jerry Gray's "String of Pearls" (most commonly thought of as a Glenn Miller standard) on acoustic, or electric, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you were referring to ... .

Mmm, sounds like somebody has a little problem! I feel your pain, Methadras. I can't stop thinking about ramming throats and stinging twink asses and whipping it out and implanting myself in little "metro" boys either.

Oh dear, here comes the closeted homosexual implications. That is so beneath you. Hmm, another innuendo. Oh, there was another one, get it? Inn-u-endo. Well, slap me silly. I'm just glad I missed my gay calling, but don't be disappointed, even the little Mary's think I'm too much man for their little special pee-pee club.

I assure you, I am a flaming heterosexual. However, I do know too many homosexual men that squirt these trains of thought that I have to endure listening too. Who the fuck are they kidding? It's not like they were born with a lisp and a limp wrist. They learned it all from the group of 'sisters' that came before them. One generation teaching the next. Some want men more than woman, some simply don't like women and yet yearn to become them, some don't like women and are disgusted with what they are yet succumb to their base desires because all of their friends will ostracize them and be left with no one. So they choose for better or worse and the devil be damned, because most of the time they know they are the ones that will be damned deep down in the darkest nooks of their souls. But they don't care because ultimately they are creatures of infatuation, gratification, and narcissism.

Well Tadashi is one of the few designers who actually cut in the sizes that I provide. 10-28. Most of them won't do it. When we went to the tent shows in Byrant Park I approached a mid rank designer who is in my size range her own self and asked if she would cut for me. She look horrified. What a dunce.

Now don't be modest reader. I am sure that your husband will be happy to give you a string of pearls anytime you want one.

(Double meaning for youse guys in the rectangle states in the middle there)

Some women don't like to wear the 'pearls' their husbands want to give them < wink >. Although I've heard from several sources, who shall remain unnamed, that pearls are good for the skin. Sort of like Oil of Olay. They are free and can be produced more than once a day, depending on who you are of course.

Thank God for that. I do like how you can't talk about gay men without using the word "squirt".

Do you like it? Do you really, really like it? What are you wearing? Bah, fuck it, you are probably wearing a teddy or a baby doll outfit with your body hairs protruding through the fabric. Classy.

"But they don't care because ultimately they are creatures of infatuation, gratification, and narcissism."

Yes of course since we know that heterosexuals are never infatuated, narcissistic or interested in gratification. Heterosexual sex is about nothing but sacred, God-given procreation.

Of course heterosexuals are infatuated, narcissistic, and look for gratification, but not in the same way homosexuals men are. Homosexual men elevate those notions to a completely different plane. The level of promiscuity in the homosexual male community is off the charts, it's like watching sharks in a feeding frenzy. Trust me, I've seen it and it's just totally different.

As far as sex being nothing more than a God-given sacred act for the sole source of pro-creation, I would say to you that isn't true. Sex is one of the expressions of love that God imbues us with. If it occurs in the tradition of marriage then all the more power to it. If a child is made from that expression of love, then an even better blessing for it. It's just not something that homosexual men can do. Ever.

Then your next comment is about ejaculating on women's faces. Charming!

I sense jealousy in your words. Either way, a pearl necklace isn't about ejaculating on womens faces, but if you've done it, you would have known that. Yeah, definitely jealousy.

But it still amazes me that after six weeks of wall-to-wall coverage of Obama's history with Reverend Wright that there are still people who call him a muslim, claim he went to school in a madrassa, took his oath of office on the Quran and is a member of Louis Farrakhan's congregation.

As the owner of the Bilerico Project - the blog Alex posted on - I have to say I'm glad he's posted again to respond (mostly) to this thread. I've lost a lot of respect for Ann's readers after reading the comments.

Most of you obviously didn't read the post. Flat out. You accuse Alex of being homophobic (he's gay), criticize popular gay slang with the whole "I don't understand that word so the whole thing must be stupid!" mentality that George Bush uses when reading anything with a higher reading level than his Dr. Suess books, and generally spread more homophobic priggishness than the mainstream media he's tracking.

My favorite part of his update, btw, is for the person on here who dissects his post for "regulating femininity" and how stupid it is to try to regulate... Actually the word was "relegate." *sigh*

Most of you missed the point by a mile. But the actual homophobic and anti-gay comments on here took me by surprise. I'd thought Ann's readers had more class.

bilerico said..."Most of you obviously didn't read the post. Flat out. You accuse Alex of being homophobic (he's gay), criticize popular gay slang with the whole "I don't understand that word so the whole thing must be stupid!" mentality that George Bush uses when reading anything with a higher reading level than his Dr. Suess books, and generally spread more homophobic priggishness than the mainstream media he's tracking."

Who accused Alex of being homophobic? You should be more precise, especially if you're just dropping by to call people stupid. I think everyone here realized that Alex is gay, but it's certainly possible that a gay person could unwittingly promote homophobia, which was what my question was about.

"My favorite part of his update, btw, is for the person on here who dissects his post for "regulating femininity" and how stupid it is to try to regulate... Actually the word was "relegate." *sigh*"

The "person" you are insulting here is actually gay and also very smart. I think you ought to consider the possibility that he's being sarcastic. You're commenting in a place with a very strong and well-established comment community, and you ought to get a feeling for what it is like around here before just insulting everyone. This is not at all a homophobic place and many of the commenters are gay.

"Most of you missed the point by a mile. But the actual homophobic and anti-gay comments on here took me by surprise. I'd thought Ann's readers had more class."

Enumerate the comments that you think are homophobic. Name names and quote people. I don't think you can! You owe us better than this bilerico. I'm disgusted by your drive-by comment. Redeem yourself!

Yes, Alex means well, as he usually does but (as usual) his point is lost or buried in his writing.

This is also something that is typical of Bilerico in generaL-- they find some obscure gay reference in the news, blow it completely out of proportion and milk it for all it's worth to get hits on their site (Alex, for example, plans a third post on this inmane topic) which is just as inane this.

That said, Bilerico is a great site. Mr. Blaze (not his real name) is a liar and a hypocrite and, as Chric Crain observed,Chris Crain he is a, "mouthy white 20-something with zero credentials who channels Dana Carvey's Church Lady."